Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) is a leading global financial services firm providing investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services. It is headquartered at 1585 Broadway in the Morgan Stanley Building, Midtown Manhattan, New York City. With offices in more than 42 countries and more than 55,000 employees, the firm’s clients include corporations, governments, institutions and individuals.
Morgan Stanley, formed by J.P. Morgan & Co. partners Henry Sturgis Morgan (grandson of J.P. Morgan), Harold Stanley and others, came into existence on September 16, 1935, in response to the Glass–Steagall Act that required the splitting of commercial and investment banking businesses. In its first year the company operated with a 24% market share (US$1.1 billion) in public offerings and private placements. The main areas of business for the firm today are Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management.» [Fonte]
In numeri, Morgan Stanley nel 2016 denunciava ricavi per 37.95 miliardi Usd, reddito operativo 8.5 miliardi, ed un asset under management di 1,300 miliardi. Più tutto il resto.
Di questa banca di interesse mondiale si può dire di tutto tranne che non sappiano guadagnare loro e far guadagnare i propri clienti, che le hanno dato da gestire un qualcosa come 1,300 miliardi di dollari.
Morgan Stanley sa più che bene come l’unico modo di mantener e di accrescere la clientela sia farla guadagnare.
* * * * * * *
«Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them.»
«And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material»
«the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.»
«Morgan Stanley, …. admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science»
* * * * * * *
Il risultato delle ricerche condotte dalla Morgan Stanley è riassumibile in due statement:
– se è vero che le automobili elettriche non sarebbero inquinanti, la produzione della corrente necessaria al loro funzionamento risulterebbe essere ancor più inquinante rispetto ai classici motori a combustione.
– Tesla non sarebbe società sulla quale operare investimenti strategici.
* * * * * * *
Ecco qualche spigolatura su Tesla.
Tesla’s sales in Denmark fell a jaw-dropping 94% last year – and Musk could see the crash from miles away
→ New American. 2017-08-18. Morgan Stanley: Tesla Not as Green as You Think
Morgan Stanley, the international banking behemoth, released the results of its study on the best “green” companies in which to invest. This is based, said the bank, on the assumptions that some, perhaps many, investors who have drunk the “green Kool-Aid” want to invest in ways to “save” the environment and fight against “climate change.” Missing from the top of their list is perhaps the most visible “green” automobile company: Tesla, Inc., formerly known as Tesla Motors.
After comparing the savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) achieved by Tesla’s high-mileage electric vehicles to all the “secondary and tertiary” factors involved in their manufacture, Morgan Stanley said, “The carbon emissions generated by the electricity required … are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.” That Tesla wasn’t nearer to the top, said the bank, was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.
Part of the problem, said the report, is that that electricity is largely generated by burning fossil fuels. With “72% [of electricity produced] in the U.S. [by fossil fuels], the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material,” said the bank.
This echoed conclusions made back in May by British “greenhouse gas” expert Mike Berners-Lee, author of How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything. Said Berners-Lee: “If you are a relatively low-mileage person, you should stick with your gas-powered car.” Enviros at left-liberal Salon magazine interviewed Berners-Lee, who admitted that “green” isn’t just measured by tail-pipe emissions, but by everything involved in building a Tesla:
Important factors in determining carbon emissions include the weight of the vehicle, driving habits and the source of the electricity that charges your car … it can be a much greener choice to keep the perfectly functional car you have, rather than go out and buy a new [green] one.
That CO2 calculation which adds up everything involved a building a Tesla, or any other vehicle, is called “embodied carbon”: all the energy required to build the car from the ground up. That includes the extraction and processing of raw materials and shipping the parts and the vehicles themselves across oceans in oil- or coal-fired tankers. It also includes the cost of building the massive plants to assemble them.
For instance, Tesla received approval last December from the city of Fremont, California, to expand its present facility there by 4.6 million square feet, which includes 12 “growth zones” around the site. This expansion includes the steel, concrete, and plastic not only in its construction but in the production lines and computers that drive the robots. It also must encompass the tax credits that Fremont’s politicians no doubt granted to keep Tesla from building its plant elsewhere.
There’s another cost involved as well — one that neither Berners-Lee nor Morgan Stanley considered: the $7,500 tax credit provided to purchasers of the Tesla which is paid for by taxpayers. These “incentives” distort the market and tilt it in favor of Tesla against its competitors. Without those incentives, credits, and political enticements, Tesla (which, by the way has turned a profit in just two quarters in its 13-year existence) might just be a footnote in history.
In other words, one can never know whether Tesla’s electric car venture would ever pay off, either economically or environmentally. Once the government (state, local, or federal) gets involved in picking winners, it distorts the market because it is also automatically involved in punishing losers (those who don’t get the credits). So one cannot ever be sure whether the free market, driven by consumer choice, would reward Tesla with profitability or even allow its continued existence.
Just how great is that market distortion, thanks to governmental favoritism and media hype? Consider this: Tesla’s market capitalization (its stock price multiplied by shares outstanding) is now greater than that of General Motors! This despite the fact that Tesla lost $773 million in 2016 while GM earned a profit of more than $9 billion. This despite the fact that Tesla sold only 76,000 cars last year while GM sold 10 million.
Tesla just may be “building a better mousetrap” with its lithium-ion battery-powered automobiles. It’s too bad that the free market won’t be allowed to make that decision on its own.
→ Market Watch. 2017-08-18. Want to fight climate change? Don’t invest in Tesla
Climate change is almost unanimously considered one of the gravest threats facing humanity, with the worst-case scenarios representing massive environmental destruction. Investors hoping to combat it with their portfolio allocations can, but one famous environmentally focused company may actually be doing more harm than good.
Morgan Stanley identified 39 stocks that generate at least half their revenue “from the provision of solutions to climate change,” something it said was a central component of investing to make a difference, as opposed to just a making a buck.
“In our view, impact investing needs to begin with companies whose products and services have a notable positive environmental or social impact,” wrote Jessica Alsford, an equity strategist at the investment bank.
Not surprisingly, alternative-energy companies ranked the highest in terms of their positive impact, and the “top five climate-change impact stocks” were all manufacturers of solar and wind energy: Canadian Solar CSIQ, -9.86% China High Speed Transmission 0658, +0.00% GCL-Poly 3800, +0.00% Daqo New Energy DQ, -5.25% and Jinko Solar JKS, -9.99%
Not among the top companies? Electric-car makers, including Tesla Inc. TSLA, -2.76% Elon Musk’s company has been an investor favorite for years, even eclipsing Ford Motor Co. F, +0.09% and General Motors GM, +0.23% in market cap.
Tesla shares are up nearly 66% so far this year, but the good it may have been doing for portfolios may not translate to it doing good for the planet. Morgan Stanley said this was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.
The bank grouped the “climate-change impact stocks” into four sector categories: utilities, renewable manufacturers, green infrastructure companies and transportation stocks. It then analyzed them on a number of metrics, including “the CO2 [carbon dioxide] savings achieved from the products and services sold by the companies,” as well as secondary and tertiary factors centered around the environmental impact of the making of these products.
This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech 002074, +1.30% fall short.
“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”
In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”
Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.
Morgan Stanley, which in February advocated for looking at gender diversity when analyzing companies, admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science.
“Very few if any stocks will have a 100% net positive impact,” read the report. “However, the extra layer of analysis on subsidiary effects must be a subjective judgement call, based on whether the additional impacts (of which there may be many) are sufficiently negative to offset the positive effect created by the core business.”
It added, “We even struggled to find total CO2 emissions data for most companies.”
Investing with an eye toward the environment is part of a growing trend of ESG investing, which stands for evaluating companies on environmental, social and governance grounds. Such investments favor companies that have strong environmental policies, or that treat their employees well, for example.
There are even funds that focus specifically on climate-change issues, like the iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF CRBN, -0.10% or the SPDR MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF LOWC, -0.12% . Both exchange-traded funds have outperformed the broader S&P 500 so far this year, whereas the largest ETF to track the energy sector XLE, -0.51% recently dropped into bear-market territory, defined as a 20% drop from a peak.
The low-carbon funds have seen increased usage over the past year, something analysts credit to the election of President Donald Trump, whose administration is seen as hostile to environmentally friendly policies.